Court upholds interim orders granted against Adamexpo

Wednesday, 15 August 2018 00:10 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

The Commercial High Court has entered an extensive order on 12 July 2018 dismissing the motion to vacate the interim order restraining Adamexpo Ltd. from passing resolutions.

This case was instituted by Fatema Shabbir, Taher Abbas Gulamhusein and Samina Gulamhusein, who are the petitioners of this case on the basis that the petitioners have been oppressed in Adamexpo Ltd. and Adamexpo Ltd. has been seriously mismanaged by Ali Asger Shabbir Gulamhusein, who is the second respondent. The Commercial High Court granted several interim orders against Ali Asger Gulamhusein and two others.

Pursuant thereto, the second respondent had filed limited objections to the extension or revocation of the said interim orders. However, on 21 November 2017, the Commercial High Court refused to vacate the interim orders.

Thereafter, the second respondent, being affected by the order dated 21 November 2017, had filed a leave to appeal application in the Supreme Court against the Order of the Commercial High Court.

Pursuant to a heavily fought battle in the Supreme Court, the judges of the Supreme Court had refused to grant leave to appeal from the Order of the Commercial High Court.

Dr. Harsha Cabral, President’s Counsel, appearing for the second petitioner Taher Abbas Gulamhusein, made extensive submissions and vehemently objected to the submissions made by Dr. K. Kanag-Isvaran, Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe and Palitha Kumarasinghe President’s Counsel, who appeared for the respondents.

However, the Supreme Court has noted that the interim order granted in respect of restraining Adamexpo Ltd. from passing resolutions is seemingly obnoxious to the spirit of the Companies Act, No. 7 of 2007. On that basis, the second respondent has filed a motion on 24 April 2018 to vacate the said interim order restraining Adamexpo Ltd. from passing resolutions.

Considering the extensive submissions made by Dr. K. Kanag-Isvaran and S. Parathalingam, President’s Counsel and reply submissions made by Dr. Harsha Cabral, President’s Counsel and Manoj Bandara, Attorney at Law, judge Ruwan Fernando dismissed the motion dated 24 April 2018 and upheld the original interim order.